(March 29, 2018 at 2:40 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: The whole argument has problems, but on the one point, (the difference in essence between ideas and material things) the metaphysics are hardly clear.

For instance, I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk. Material thing... has mass and volume. But! The idea of the coffee cup... 

-has mass and occupies space.

You are right FlatAssemble^ they aren't, but most importantly, they have nothing in common with materialism. Whatever you imagine of material existence (and it's a false imagination), itself is an idea you have.  To make it material, you have to make it opposite to immaterial which is an idea as well and experience in the mind. So how does your immaterial idea create material accurate view?

IT's impossible to conceive of what a material thing would like. But more importantly, if material things exist, their nature is opposite to immateriality. And ideas are immaterial, and hence, when you imagine material, you are imagining the opposite of the only thing you perceive to exist.  That is how you create materialism, you say everything I imagine of spiritual immaterialism I see of myself, I am going to assume the opposite of materialism. And hence the trait they have nothing in common is true.

If nothing is in common, how can one interfere and cause the other?

(March 29, 2018 at 2:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: ^I think he is saying ideas can't be caused by material things because they have nothing in common.

What is in common between material and immaterial things? If nothing is in common, what is the link between them so that one can cause the other?

I didn't say that. I was merely iterating Berkeley's notion. To Berkeley,  there is no material cause.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 2:40 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: The whole argument has problems, but on the one point, (the difference in essence between ideas and material things) the metaphysics are hardly clear.

For instance, I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk. Material thing... has mass and volume. But! The idea of the coffee cup... 

-has mass and occupies space.

How are you arriving there? There is a difference between the idea and the actual object, right? The idea of the coffee cup is not the coffee cup. So what is it? And how can we measure the mass and volume of an idea?

(March 29, 2018 at 2:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 2:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: ^I think he is saying ideas can't be caused by material things because they have nothing in common.

What is in common between material and immaterial things? If nothing is in common, what is the link between them so that one can cause the other?

I didn't say that. I was merely iterating Berkeley's notion. To Berkeley,  there is no material cause.

Yes, but he asserts that by the premise, material (which if you think about is Opposite of immaterialism) has nothing in common with immaterial, and so there can't be a causal link. 

I think this is stronger then any argument I ever done so this guy is good   IT's very well thought of and presented well.

And I think I just further emphasized why that premise is completely true.

(March 29, 2018 at 2:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: How are you arriving there? There is a difference between the idea and the actual object, right?

Sure, but the difference is not that one has mass and occupies space and the other does not.

Quote:The idea of the coffee cup is not the coffee cup.

OFC not, just as an elephant and the idea of an elephant aren;t the same thing.  One has too much mass and occupies too much space to fit inside your head.  The other does not.

Quote:So what is it? And how can we measure the mass and volume of an idea?

You can get a rough measurement of the total mass and space of all ideas by measuring the brain.  It may be that some idea x is discrtete or distributed..and so the mass and space of that idea x would be directly proportionate to the discrete or distributed mass of the brain.  Thaty;s just one way of doing it, which considers the instantiation of the idea as a meaningful inclusion of any measurement.

You could reduce that, if you liked..without such an inclusion or requirement to the total mass and space of the signals the brain carries..which is still a number greater than zero, albeit much smaller than anything the first method would yield.

(you could, obviously, include the entire cns in either method, if you liked.)

(March 29, 2018 at 2:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 2:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I didn't say that. I was merely iterating Berkeley's notion. To Berkeley,  there is no material cause.

Yes, but he asserts that by the premise, material (which if you think about is Opposite of immaterialism) has nothing in common with immaterial, and so there can't be a causal link. 

I think this is stronger then any argument I ever done so this guy is good   IT's very well thought of and presented well.

And I think I just further emphasized why that premise is completely true.

...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter. A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

^what you perceive of the material brain is made out of "opposite things" to the immaterial, right?

But what is immaterial and material, they are opposite. So if the premise something with no commonality with something else can't cause it, is true, than this argument is sound, because material and immaterial are defined to be opposite of one another, and hence don't have anything in common.

So this an argument to show that materialism is impossible. You can't then just to refute deny the conclusion, and say well the material brain causes ideas.

Common on you know better!

"How dare you deny the fiat assertion of what I'm trying to prove in my argument..... of what I'm trying to prove in my argument!  Unfair, double-plus ungood!"

These sorts of arguments hate facts like a vampire hates garlic.

(March 29, 2018 at 2:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: ^what you perceive of the material brain is made out of "opposite things" to the immaterial, right?

But what is immaterial and material, they are opposite. So if the premise something with no commonality with something else can't cause it, is true, than this argument is sound, because material and immaterial are defined to be opposite of one another, and hence don't have anything in common.

So this an argument to show that materialism is impossible. You can't then just to refute deny the conclusion, and say well the material brain causes ideas.

Common on you know better!

What on earth are you talking about?  That is utterly nonsensical.  The brain is a material thing.  The brain is necessary for conceiving ideas and conceptions and perceptions.  It's a straight causal line - you can't have those immaterial things without a material brain to create/perceive them. Your premise is simply bullshit.  

Do you disagree that the brain is necessary for ideas?

---

(March 29, 2018 at 2:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: "How dare you deny the fiat assertion of what I'm trying to prove in my argument..... of what I'm trying to prove in my argument!  Unfair, double-plus ungood!"

These sorts of arguments hate facts like a vampire hates garlic.

I'm seriously considering putting him back on ignore again.  His 'woe is me i can't help but argue, and yet argue using unintelligible nonsense' shtick is wearing very thin.

It's not a flat assertion, ideas are non-material. Atheists believe material brain forms it, some Theists believe there is dualism, this guy proved both are wrong, and there is only non-material existence.

He does so by presenting a paradox, that relies on the truth "something with no common interconnecting anything with something cannot cause it or influence it".

And the fact is materialism is defined to be opposite to immaterialism by definition.

---

Fat, you cannot just attack the conclusion to refute the argument. That's not helpful.

You have to attack one of the premises.